Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combie

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus appears to cover the additional articles as well. Pigman☿ 07:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Combie

The article is at best an original synthesis of material. The editor who created the article is a single-purpose promoter of theories (quite possibly his own, see User talk:Athang1504), including the whole angle on this article, that have nowhere been embraced by reliable sources. This article cites only ancient sources, several of which, upon examination, do not in any way transparently support the original thesis. In Diodorus Siculus, e.g., κομβ does not occur within a dozen words of χαλκ anywhere. Even if the author had hit on some truth undiscovered by scholars, we'd have to see it embraced in reliable sources before including an article in the encyclopedia. Wareh (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are equally unattributed to reliable sources and expository of original Athanasios Angelopoulos ideas. I'd like to observe that Athang1504's method is to cite Athanasios Angelopoulos explicitly when expanding existing articles with original research, but to present totally new articles with only a list of ancient sources supposedly justifying the contents. Wareh (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all for the reasons set out by Wareh. However, I predict that there will be "keep and clean up" votes, because valid articles could be written for all of these--most of them would be three-line stubs and uninfomative, of course. But I'd prefer to just delete them to get rid of the fringyness. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I'm not ruling out the possibility that some of these topics merit articles, but the existing ones are misleading or OR-ish enough that they'd need to be entirely rewritten anyway. (Nobody except Athang1504 has made significant contributions to these articles.) EALacey (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. --Tikiwont 12:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up The page Basileia (Mythology) seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable summary of the myth given by Diodorus Siculus. I don't see the point of deleting the page just because some of the others are bad. Singinglemon (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.